Democrats on the other hand have a hard time stating their positions because they are complex. This makes it hard for casual voters to grasp democrats positions as opposed to republicans position. Thus to define themselves they end up being for what the republicans are not or so it is packaged and perceived by the general public. Even John Kerry presented himself with “Im not Bush.”

In a fast paced world in which about 90 percent of America could give a hoot about politics except during their time to vote this makes it harder for the democrats to get their message across.

Even your short version has me scratching my head wondering just which one of a million interpretations you can put on this:

“Good government manages public resources for the public good, not for private gain.”

Define public good. Whose good? Abortion is for the public good. According to the GOP. Abortion is not good for the public good according to the democrats. Hand guns? Public good? GWB thought that going to war in Iraq was for the public good.

I don't mean to rain on your parade but this is precisely what I mean by the democrats inability to simply and straight forwardly define themselves in a clear and concise manner.

No even this is an entire concept that while rolling off your tongue might sound decent it is so open to interpretations as to be the theme for a research grant by the Brookings institute.

Democrats on the other hand have a hard time stating their positions because they are complex. This makes it hard for casual voters to grasp democrats positions as opposed to republicans position. Thus to define themselves they end up being for what the republicans are not or so it is packaged and perceived by the general public. Even John Kerry presented himself with “Im not Bush.”

In a fast paced world in which about 90 percent of America could give a hoot about politics except during their time to vote this makes it harder for the democrats to get their message across.

Even your short version has me scratching my head wondering just which one of a million interpretations you can put on this:

“Good government manages public resources for the public good, not for private gain.”

Define public good. Whose good? Abortion is for the public good. According to the GOP. Abortion is not good for the public good according to the democrats. Hand guns? Public good? GWB thought that going to war in Iraq was for the public good.

I don't mean to rain on your parade but this is precisely what I mean by the democrats inability to simply and straight forwardly define themselves in a clear and concise manner.

No even this is an entire concept that while rolling off your tongue might sound decent it is so open to interpretations as to be the theme for a research grant by the Brookings institute.

Neocon, I am indeed a staunch Democrat now, but was once a Republican, when the party stood for fiscal responsibility, states rights, individual rights including the right to privacy, and the rule of law.

And, I am not “forced to go into a long narrative” but rather, to paraphrase Pascal, I didn't have time to write a shorter one. However, I did give you the soundbite version: “Good government manages public resources for the public good, not for private gain.”

Now ordinarily, I would determine not to engage with someone, and there are a few here, who just spout Republican talking points at me. But your surprise admission that you may be voting for Obama gives me hope that dialoguing with you may be worthwhile.

Your assertion that Republicans “are against higher taxes” may be true on a philosophical basis, but the effect of Republican rule is the opposite. For everyone in our country the portion of our taxes dedicated to paying interest on the Reagan/Bush contributions to the national debt is over $250 per month (relying on memory, I exaggerated this figure above, but you'll find the citation HERE). And that's for the entire population, not just for taxpayers, so for a family of four the two income earning parents pay twice that each or $1,000 a month for the family. That's the interest on the credit card Republicans' debt. What that means in terms of everyday financial outlay is the first several months of every year, all of our payroll taxes go toward paying interest for money borrowed primarily for the Reagan/Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war.

So yes, I see your point that the simplistic mantra of “less taxes” works for many Americans, obviously. But it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and that has become obvious to most as the earning power and spending power of the middle class and lower has declined, while that of millionaires has skyrocketed. I don't get your point on guns, as the Democratic Party position is supported by the mayors of every major city in America and of every major law enforcement agency in America. Hunting rifles? Fine. Assault rifles? No way. Handguns? OK, with registration, a background check to see that we're not putting handguns in the hands of felons, and a cooling off period to prevent crimes of passion.

So, for the voters to whom you refer, here's the simple difference:

Republicans, more war in Iraq and probably Iran.
Democrats, no more war in Iraq nor Iran.

Republicans, more right wing judges who believe in an imperial presidency, the denial of a woman's right to choose, torture, extraordinary rendition, no right to face your accuser, see the evidence or know with what you are charged, etc. I think you see where this is going.
Democrats, none of that.

Republicans, smaller government. Hahahahaha, yeah right!

Republicans, total fiscal irresponsibility, massive debt, huge deficits, miserable trade balance, falling dollar. Any questions?

Neocon, I am indeed a staunch Democrat now, but was once a Republican, when the party stood for fiscal responsibility, states rights, individual rights including the right to privacy, and the rule of law.

And, I am not “forced to go into a long narrative” but rather, to paraphrase Pascal, I didn't have time to write a shorter one. However, I did give you the soundbite version: “Good government manages public resources for the public good, not for private gain.”

Now ordinarily, I would determine not to engage with someone, and there are a few here, who just spout Republican talking points at me. But your surprise admission that you may be voting for Obama gives me hope that dialoguing with you may be worthwhile.

Your assertion that Republicans “are against higher taxes” may be true on a philosophical basis, but the effect of Republican rule is the opposite. For everyone in our country the portion of our taxes dedicated to paying interest on the Reagan/Bush contributions to the national debt is over $250 per month (relying on memory, I exaggerated this figure above, but you'll find the citation HERE). And that's for the entire population, not just for taxpayers, so for a family of four the two income earning parents pay twice that each or $1,000 a month for the family. That's the interest on the credit card Republicans' debt. What that means in terms of everyday financial outlay is the first several months of every year, all of our payroll taxes go toward paying interest for money borrowed primarily for the Reagan/Bush tax cuts and the Iraq war.

So yes, I see your point that the simplistic mantra of “less taxes” works for many Americans, obviously. But it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and that has become obvious to most as the earning power and spending power of the middle class and lower has declined, while that of millionaires has skyrocketed. I don't get your point on guns, as the Democratic Party position is supported by the mayors of every major city in America and of every major law enforcement agency in America. Hunting rifles? Fine. Assault rifles? No way. Handguns? OK, with registration, a background check to see that we're not putting handguns in the hands of felons, and a cooling off period to prevent crimes of passion.

So, for the voters to whom you refer, here's the simple difference:

Republicans, more war in Iraq and probably Iran.
Democrats, no more war in Iraq nor Iran.

Republicans, more right wing judges who believe in an imperial presidency, the denial of a woman's right to choose, torture, extraordinary rendition, no right to face your accuser, see the evidence or know with what you are charged, etc. I think you see where this is going.
Democrats, none of that.

Republicans, smaller government. Hahahahaha, yeah right!

Republicans, total fiscal irresponsibility, massive debt, huge deficits, miserable trade balance, falling dollar. Any questions?

Jill,

You are not a writer. You are an apologist. And you do an excellent job of one thing: obfuscating truth. Instead of admitting that you supported Clinton at one time, you attempt to change the definition of support.

As long as ignorance exists, there will always be fodder for your written works. An audience with discernment makes your material irrelevant.

Jill,

You are not a writer. You are an apologist. And you do an excellent job of one thing: obfuscating truth. Instead of admitting that you supported Clinton at one time, you attempt to change the definition of support.

As long as ignorance exists, there will always be fodder for your written works. An audience with discernment makes your material irrelevant.

And I've wondered about how it is that Iraq became such a drag on Clinton.

That Obsidian Wings post does an EXCELLENT job identifying how Obama turned his angle on Iraq into a big plus and Clinton failed to neutralize it as a liability – which it was and is, agreed.

The only thing I would add to the thoughts at that post is that a bit of fairness needs to be added in in this sense: who wouldn't be stymied by what happened – by being duped and so on?

But then, playing devil's advocate against myself and not lingering too long in that thought of being stymied I also believe: as an elected political leader in the congress, a rep or senator is charged with NOT being stymied but with acting.

And that post is arguing that she failed to act, or act enough, or act in line with what was needed and so on.

That's a fair critique of how Iraq became a lethal liability for Clinton.

Thanks for pointing out the post.

And I've wondered about how it is that Iraq became such a drag on Clinton.

That Obsidian Wings post does an EXCELLENT job identifying how Obama turned his angle on Iraq into a big plus and Clinton failed to neutralize it as a liability – which it was and is, agreed.

The only thing I would add to the thoughts at that post is that a bit of fairness needs to be added in in this sense: who wouldn't be stymied by what happened – by being duped and so on?

But then, playing devil's advocate against myself and not lingering too long in that thought of being stymied I also believe: as an elected political leader in the congress, a rep or senator is charged with NOT being stymied but with acting.

And that post is arguing that she failed to act, or act enough, or act in line with what was needed and so on.

That's a fair critique of how Iraq became a lethal liability for Clinton.

Thanks for pointing out the post.

Im a democrat who supports Hillary Clinton but who will most likely vote for Barak Obama over McCain.

However if there was no Iraq in the picture I might find it in my heart to vote for a Moderate McCain.

Ease your pain Shaun. They have pills for that.

Im a democrat who supports Hillary Clinton but who will most likely vote for Barak Obama over McCain.

However if there was no Iraq in the picture I might find it in my heart to vote for a Moderate McCain.

Ease your pain Shaun. They have pills for that.

Few things have one absolute meaning. And mostly, I believe, that's a good thing. The trick is for the writer and the reader to be aware of that or acknowledge it when a meaning you didn't intend – either as an inference or an implication – is brought to your attention. That's what my first comment was intended to do. And look at this great conversation?

That's what blogs are for, imo.

Few things have one absolute meaning. And mostly, I believe, that's a good thing. The trick is for the writer and the reader to be aware of that or acknowledge it when a meaning you didn't intend – either as an inference or an implication – is brought to your attention. That's what my first comment was intended to do. And look at this great conversation?

That's what blogs are for, imo.

We know what Republicans stand for. Just look at the last seven-plus years train wreck.

I would personally like to thank you for that, and you no doubt blush with pride at the mere thought of the fiscal, social and literal carnage that your beloved GOP has wrought.

End of discussion. And don't let the door hit you and Hillaryhaslost in the ass on the way out.

We know what Republicans stand for. Just look at the last seven-plus years train wreck.

I would personally like to thank you for that, and you no doubt blush with pride at the mere thought of the fiscal, social and literal carnage that your beloved GOP has wrought.

End of discussion. And don't let the door hit you and Hillaryhaslost in the ass on the way out.

Once again as an obvious staunch democrat you are forced to go into a long narrative to describe what it is that democrats stand for.

Americans have short attention spans. This has been the downfall of the Democratic party and the liberal notion of life in general. When once this world took on the million miles a minute life style a political philosophy needed to be trimmed down to simple terms to meet up with people's revolving door day to day life.

That does not mean a long and winded narrative of what democrats are about.

Republicans are against higher taxes. Democrats are for tax breaks for the middle classe, with exceptions to the death tax and we want to tax soo and soo and this and that and in some cases tax breaks are good but overall we would like to see a more fair and equitable……blah…blah…..blah

See my point. They are simply against something rather then defining what they are for.

Republicans its simple. Less taxes. For Democrats they cant say MORE taxes so they have to simply go into a song and dance.

Republicans. Right to bear arms. Democrats…..yeah sorta, kinda but with all kinds of laws. Lets ban assault rifles and this and that. Lets have registration and laws for when and where and how you can buy a gun and on and on.

Republicans. Smaller government. Democrats…….I think you see where we are going.

Democrats cannot define themselves in simple terms that make choices easy. One must decipher what they mean this time around.

Once again as an obvious staunch democrat you are forced to go into a long narrative to describe what it is that democrats stand for.

Americans have short attention spans. This has been the downfall of the Democratic party and the liberal notion of life in general. When once this world took on the million miles a minute life style a political philosophy needed to be trimmed down to simple terms to meet up with people's revolving door day to day life.

That does not mean a long and winded narrative of what democrats are about.

Republicans are against higher taxes. Democrats are for tax breaks for the middle classe, with exceptions to the death tax and we want to tax soo and soo and this and that and in some cases tax breaks are good but overall we would like to see a more fair and equitable……blah…blah…..blah

See my point. They are simply against something rather then defining what they are for.

Republicans its simple. Less taxes. For Democrats they cant say MORE taxes so they have to simply go into a song and dance.

Republicans. Right to bear arms. Democrats…..yeah sorta, kinda but with all kinds of laws. Lets ban assault rifles and this and that. Lets have registration and laws for when and where and how you can buy a gun and on and on.

Republicans. Smaller government. Democrats…….I think you see where we are going.

Democrats cannot define themselves in simple terms that make choices easy. One must decipher what they mean this time around.